> You won't need as much distro specific help with Debian as with
> RedHat. Debian left more bits and pieces intact, whereas RedHat
> applied lots of patches to critical systems, like the kernel, ppp...
OTOH, if you're coming from a Windows, Mac, OS/2, or other graphical background,
Red Hat come
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 12:08:11 +
> Well, I wouldn't say Debian is bare-bones! But there do seem to be more people
> here running RedHat than Debian, so if you're after distro specific help it
> might be a better bet.
You won't need as much distro specific help wi
Steve Kudlak wrote:
>
> I guess I say I am learning to Redhat, as I have heard more good about it. I have
> 4.2BSD on a CD but almost no support for it as far as I can tell. Debaian is
>supposedly
> bare bones. I would like to get something up that worked, dual booted, and maybe
>needed
> tweak
Excerpts from linuxchix: 30-Oct-99 Re: [techtalk] linux dual-b.. by
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Debaian is supposedly bare bones.
Bare bones? While it is possible to install Debian such that it is bare
bones, Debian is one of the largest (in terms of total, not default)
distributions there is. I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve Kudlak wrote:
> >
> > Ok, folks I am getting serious. What are te gnerally reccomendations from
> > personal experience on dual-boot installations. I have the 4.2BSD disk already
> > (not linux I know).
> >
> > I am in the middle of nowhere techno-land wise, and
Steve Kudlak wrote:
>
> Ok, folks I am getting serious. What are te gnerally reccomendations from
> personal experience on dual-boot installations. I have the 4.2BSD disk already
> (not linux I know).
>
> I am in the middle of nowhere techno-land wise, and can expect little help. And I
> want my
